Appeal No. 1997-3511
Application No. 08/233,663
remains that one obtains a clearer picture of the prior art relative to the claimed invention
when one reviews the full text document.
In addition, we would note that the translation of German Patent 4,001,451, at page
2, would appear to make a distinction between the use of cryoprecipitates of VIII and
solutions of IX. It is not clear that either the examiner or appellants have considered the
relevancy of this information. What is clear from the present record, however, is that
neither the examiner or appellants have had the opportunity to review and consider the
translations of the documents most relevant to the determination of the obviousness of the
present claimed invention. Therefore, we remand this application, with copies of these
documents and the translations, to the examiner for full consideration of whether one or
both form the proper basis for questioning the patentability of the present claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103. In so doing we offer the following remarks which we hope will be helpful and
provide guidance in considering the issues raised by this appeal.
The examiner has taken the position that the ‘451 abstract describes a composition
of the type claimed except for the presence of the buffering agent or the surfactant.
(Answer, page 4). The examiner offers Wang as teaching that “[i]t is well known in the art
that to stabilize proteins the use of stabilizers that prevent denaturation is routine.” (Id.).
The examiner urges that Wang “disclose[s] that of the factors that contribute to
denaturation, pH, detergents or physical stress are some factors that contribute to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007